Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
The team spent 374.8 hours supporting the community October 2024 through January 2025.
Activity included
Migrate Maven build pipelines from Jenkins to GitHub Actions Workflows
Developer support for Ramsons
General maintenance of infrastructure (patches, updates, etc.)
Efforts and Plans to support of Eureka
No longer planning on moving Jenkins workflows to Github actions for Okapi-based builds.
DevOps team participating in the Eureka Adopters group (EBSCO responding to issues from GBV, Index Data, and TAMU)
Current timeline and goals
Want to have Eureka platform up by end of March
Will fine tune and optimize after that
Goals:
Reference environments that the community can rely on
Verify and flesh out Eureka issues for non-EBSCO hosting entities
Build tooling and documentation that the community can leverage (including a ‘single server’ deployment )
Discussion
Jenkins to GH actions work - don’t want to focus on Okapi now, will pick this up only for Eureka. May revisit, but likely not putting efforts in Okapi-based builds/workflows
Are there other early adopters with comments on Eureka - Kirtsin notes giving regular updates to PC, have done KeyCloak and Kong, working on other things. More work than thought in environments different from EBSCO assumptions. Regular meetings with EBSCO and other early adopters on Wednesdays
375 hours. Does that include any of Peter’s OLF work? Asking because of additional projects coming in to OLF and want to track and handle that – Peter's work is completely separate, he is logging OLF work distinct from FOLIO work
Mike will start giving monthly updates on Eureka work
Next full update in April
Simeon raises the issue of Index Data’s agreement/work and the term (currently ends June 30, 2025). Does Index Data want to retain this relationship with the community (Mike says yes) - and likewise does it seem to be a good thing from the CC’s perspective. After discussion Simeon suggests that we move to an annual contract. Comments that it make sense and seems like the right way to go. Simeon and Christopher will work with Mike to come up with a proposal to be approved in April.
Agreed communication approach for Eureka adoption that was agreed by all 3 councils
Working on draft agenda for in-person DC summit
Set next Community Update Meeting for Friday, Apr 25 at 11am ET, see FOLIO Community Updates
Notes:
Simeon points out that all three councils have highlighted Eureka adoption (with the provision that if the Eureka Adopters find issues things can be delayed.
Stephen and Simeon spent time running through people’s comments and making adjustments so that things are clearer, more consistent and aligning with current practice, but not effecting any substantive changes to the governance model.
Proposed pulling out the characteristics of potential members (to be moved somewhere else) - not really governance and keeps the doc shorter.
Can we ‘affirm’ this new version before we meet in Washington DC, starting with CC? Mike suggests assigning the task of approving or making specific feedback by the next CC meeting. General thumbs up for that idea.
Kristin suggests that we reviewers hold off on making suggests that require deeper analysis and discussion so that we can save those more complicated discussions for another time.
Action: CC to review the document ahead of the next meeting so that we can discuss then accept (or not) the document.
Christopher suggest that we take the agreed-to clean copy into the DC meeting for discussion, even if the other councils haven’t had time to confirm support of the new document.
Maccabee notes that the document seems to add more detail around quorum, majority and voting. Simeon and Stephen point out that the changes were an attempt to clarify and not attempting to make changes. Maccabee notes that the TC has had a lot of discussion about words like ‘majority’ and ‘quorum’ and how ‘abstain’ votes counted or not to majorities. So -the review of this document in the TC might resurface those discussions.
Kristin Martin notes that how the PC votes does not seem to be quite the same as the TC
Review developer advocate role and consider filling
Think about how to increase membership, membership has decreased but number of institutions adopting FOLIO has increased
Notes
This effort is just starting
Simeon mentions as an example that something we need to nail down is timing of Elections
@Joseph Grobelny notes that he’s part of the Election committee and he’s reaching out to TC and PC
Relative to WOLFcon planning
Typically the FOLIO WOLFcon coordinator will reach out to councils for their needs
Unsure who the coordinator is at this point for FOLIO, but people are talking to @Jesse Koennecke and information will flow soon
Budget
Simeon suggests that we begin these discussions after the DC meeting
One-note - relative to a Developer advocate, which we liked, but since that person has left and we had a budget ‘crunch’ - we neglected to replace them. But the quest remains should we try to re-open that job?
Should we reach out to the Developers to get their feedback?
There was an ‘off-boarding’ report by the Dev Advocate
We should circle back to TC, etc to get feedback. CC would need to review the report and other feedback to make a recommendation
Are there opportunities for us to increase our membership? We were able to add a few members around WOLFcon last year.
Turns out we had some recent contact from folks in Slovakia
Was there an effort to reach out to customers who are not members?
EBSCO, for larger organizations, as part of the tender they offer to pay for the customer to become members for a couple of years. So far there hasn’t been push back - in fact this method is preferred since it allows for one FOLIO-related invoice
EBSCO will also ask internally if they are able to share contacts in order for the community to reach out to sites directly
As good as EBSCO’s efforts are, it can’t replace the activities of the community itself.
Edwin mentions that any time they talk about FOLIO to members and others in Germany they make sure to mention “you have to pay for open source”. This should be a consistent message. This might be a topic for the DC meeting.
The question is asked - do we send emails or contact new FOLIO adopters a welcome message that lets them know what’s going on?
In the past this type of things was done, but it takes a lot of time
We don’t have a good list of who is ‘new’
Can EBSCO and Index Data provide contacts or send a message on behalf of the community? Vendors need to be considerate of privacy of the individuals that may be contacted.
@Joseph Grobelny@Shawn Nicholson volunteers to draft the first letter.
Note there’s a members group that might be able to take this on too.